GCwaitforever
04-30 03:08 PM
Transformation program is randomly processing applications to thier liking and ignoring priority date, FIFO etc ... From this chaos, order generates itself. Kind of testing Chaos theory. :D
wallpaper orange nato for the 007?
ramus
07-06 01:29 PM
When you come with such statement please give source?
it seems they are planning to honor the July VB and make chanes in Aug VB. So I guess they will accept the applications in July. :rolleyes:
it seems they are planning to honor the July VB and make chanes in Aug VB. So I guess they will accept the applications in July. :rolleyes:
franklin
09-28 08:11 PM
Huge surprise
Good job there aren't any inefficiencies in processing...
...Oh.... wait!
Good job there aren't any inefficiencies in processing...
...Oh.... wait!
2011 a Rescue Orange Nato strap
hazishak
07-19 01:33 PM
Not necessarily. Here is a hypothetical scenario:
PersonA = PD of May 30th, 2003 and RD of June 15th, 2007.
Assume that an additional 150,000 I-485 applications were filed petween PersonA and PersonB
PersonB = PD of May 15, 2002 and RD of July 15th 2007.
USCIS starts pre-adjudicating cases based on Receipt date. Assume that by October 1, 2007, they have pre-adjudicated PersonA plus 9,000 of the 150,000 applications and haven't reached PersonB's application yet (they go by RD).
Assuming that the visa cutoff date in Oct, 2007 bulletin is June,2003 making both PersonA and personB current:
PersonA (PD of 2003) will get a visa number and get the case approved while PersonB (PD of 2002) with an older priority date will have to wait a while because his case hasn't been touched by USCIS yet due to the additional 150,000 filings in between that have to be pre-adjudicated first based on RD even if they have 2004/2005/2006/2007 priority dates!!
.
Since both A and B were current at the time of AOS approval. Person with earlier RD will take precedence. however if the cut off date were April 2003, person B will get the visa.
PersonA = PD of May 30th, 2003 and RD of June 15th, 2007.
Assume that an additional 150,000 I-485 applications were filed petween PersonA and PersonB
PersonB = PD of May 15, 2002 and RD of July 15th 2007.
USCIS starts pre-adjudicating cases based on Receipt date. Assume that by October 1, 2007, they have pre-adjudicated PersonA plus 9,000 of the 150,000 applications and haven't reached PersonB's application yet (they go by RD).
Assuming that the visa cutoff date in Oct, 2007 bulletin is June,2003 making both PersonA and personB current:
PersonA (PD of 2003) will get a visa number and get the case approved while PersonB (PD of 2002) with an older priority date will have to wait a while because his case hasn't been touched by USCIS yet due to the additional 150,000 filings in between that have to be pre-adjudicated first based on RD even if they have 2004/2005/2006/2007 priority dates!!
.
Since both A and B were current at the time of AOS approval. Person with earlier RD will take precedence. however if the cut off date were April 2003, person B will get the visa.
more...
jk333
07-23 01:47 PM
Just sharing so that this encorages more participation..
Our company fund drive is at 12500$ (in 4 days).. We're trying to hit 15K
by Wednesday, which I hope we'll be able to race past.
Any other company wants to challenge our Drive? :)
Hi guys,
I am sure every company would have their own 'stuck in gc process' alias.
Please start an IV fund drive, so that you can do this on a company basis.
Theres one going on in mine..and guess what..20 contributions in a couple of hours.
Our company fund drive is at 12500$ (in 4 days).. We're trying to hit 15K
by Wednesday, which I hope we'll be able to race past.
Any other company wants to challenge our Drive? :)
Hi guys,
I am sure every company would have their own 'stuck in gc process' alias.
Please start an IV fund drive, so that you can do this on a company basis.
Theres one going on in mine..and guess what..20 contributions in a couple of hours.
FraudGultee
04-17 09:04 AM
Many congratulations
more...
pappu
07-25 05:55 PM
Contributed $100 thru PayPal(Transaction ID: 3X3138428V341142D)
Thank you
Thank you
2010 NATO strap samples
ujjwal_p
09-10 06:55 PM
This will depend on two factors
Demand from EB1 and EB2-ROW
USCIS allocation strategy (Quarterly spillover or year end spillover)
From historic data I have seen some 15-25k visa spillover to EB2/EB3 India-China, this number varies based on demand of various EB categories each year.
With H-1B cap coming down in 2004 to 65000, demand should go down by a decent margin post 2004, since its the H-1B's which will lead up to the EB queue.
By the way Sachug/vdlrao, do we know if this will be yearly or quarterly spillover. If it is year end, what does this mean? September or July(beginning of last quarter)? And I am sure there is documentation about this new horizontal spillover method from USCIS, but I can't seem to find it. Could someone point me to that. Thanks!
Demand from EB1 and EB2-ROW
USCIS allocation strategy (Quarterly spillover or year end spillover)
From historic data I have seen some 15-25k visa spillover to EB2/EB3 India-China, this number varies based on demand of various EB categories each year.
With H-1B cap coming down in 2004 to 65000, demand should go down by a decent margin post 2004, since its the H-1B's which will lead up to the EB queue.
By the way Sachug/vdlrao, do we know if this will be yearly or quarterly spillover. If it is year end, what does this mean? September or July(beginning of last quarter)? And I am sure there is documentation about this new horizontal spillover method from USCIS, but I can't seem to find it. Could someone point me to that. Thanks!
more...
fruity
07-23 04:50 AM
My case was completed at the NVC last year, this was when there were still schedule A visas. Then retro came in Nov. In June 2007, NVC asked to re submit ds230. Why did they ask to resubmit it if we weren't assigned a visa number yet? and now that there are no visas left for CP, our file gets stuck again, and when our PD becomes current, do we have to resubmit for the 3rd time our ds230.... So confusing......
hair on a black nato strap.
gc_on_demand
04-30 10:38 AM
04/30/2008: Petitions & Applications Pending as of March 31, 2008 - USCIS
I-140=146,092
I-485=762,938
I-765=158,565
I-130=1,387,045
Did they release this info because of hearing today ? Can we find out how many of EB out of those I 485 ?
I-140=146,092
I-485=762,938
I-765=158,565
I-130=1,387,045
Did they release this info because of hearing today ? Can we find out how many of EB out of those I 485 ?
more...
tabletpc
09-10 02:33 PM
How is that DOL website does not have this information...???
hot Orange 20mm NATO strap made in England military style | eBay
trueguy
03-06 01:48 PM
Countdown started :) Hoping for April bulletin either today or on monday.
more...
house Nato Heavy Nylon Orange Strap
pkv
05-07 10:09 PM
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9186416
Congress penalizes U.S. troops, legal U.S. residents in attempt to punish illegal immigrants
By Ken McLaughlin
Mercury News
Article Launched: 05/07/2008 06:51:18 PM PDT
map loc val immig state
When Congress passed an economic-stimulus package giving hefty rebates to most taxpayers, it tried to make sure that illegal immigrants didn't get any of the cash.
But in doing so lawmakers inadvertently penalized hundreds of thousands of legal U.S. residents - and tens of thousands of U.S. troops stationed overseas - simply because their spouses lack a Social Security number.
"Imagine an American soldier in Iraq whose foreign-born wife is waiting for an immigration petition to be approved and doesn't have a Social Security card. Now the couple can't even get a rebate," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose. "That is really stupid."
Others in the predicament include about a million legal residents whose spouses are still overseas because of long immigration queues and hundreds of thousands of H-1B work visa holders in Silicon Valley and elsewhere.
The scope of the problem is only now becoming clear as the government begins mailing out rebate checks. The first checks were electronically deposited in bank accounts last week.
Because illegal immigrants don't have Social Security numbers and instead routinely use "tax identification numbers," Congress banned rebates for taxpayers who use the IRS-issued numbers.
If a married couple files jointly and one spouse doesn't have a Social Security number, the couple won't get the $1,200 checks that other couples will receive. They're also ineligible for the $300 rebate per child. Many Armed Forces members stationed overseas have foreign spouses who can't get Social Security numbers.
William Luong, stationed at a U.S. naval base in Yokosuka, Japan, said his fellow seamen resent that they've landed in the same category as illegal immigrants.
"They understand the reason they're getting the shaft," said Luong, 21, who is from the Los Angeles area. "but a lot are frustrated or angry about it."
More than 288,000 troops are stationed overseas, according to the Pentagon - not counting those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many live in places - Korea, Japan and Germany - where extended stays often result in marriages to locals.
The unintended situation developed after the House in late January passed the economic-stimulus legislation at the urging of President Bush. But anti-illegal immigration groups then lobbied the Senate to add the Social Security requirement, fearing that illegal immigrants would get their hands on the checks.
The Federation for American Immigrant Reform - whose members went on radio talk shows to bash the House version of the stimulus bill - has no apologies.
"No law was ever written that doesn't find someone falling through the cracks," said Ira Mehlman, a FAIR spokesman, who said he hoped government officials will come up with some way to help Armed Forces members.
But H-1B visa holders and legal immigrants who are being denied rebates say they want some justice, too.
"If the government collects taxes from us, we should be able to get rebates given to other legal residents, it should be a level-playing field," said Parveen Kumar, an H-1B visa holder who lives in Sunnyvale.
Kumar moved to Silicon Valley from India with his wife three years ago. He now works as an engineer at Intelliswift Software in Fremont. But his wife, Anu, is on a H-4 "dependency visa" that doesn't allow her to work.
After he found out about the rebate law, he went to the Mountain View office of the Social Security Administration and asked if he could get a number for his wife. He was told no.
John Johnston, a spokesman for the Social Security Administration, confirmed on Wednesday that the agency's policy is not to issue Social Security cards simply for the purpose of issuing tax rebates.
According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, there are now between 600,000 and 800,000 H-1B visa holders in the United States. Exactly how many are married to spouses ineligible to work in this country is unclear.
Another group of immigrants - about a million nationwide - are non-citizen green-card holders who are already facing seven-year waits to get permission for their spouses to immigrate to their country.
"I've been in America for well over 20 years, and I consider myself an American," said Amir Nikpouri of Orland Park, a suburb of Chicago. "All I'm trying to do is obey the laws, but this one seems really unfair."
Nikpouri, 31, was married three years ago, but his wife won't be eligible to immigrate from Iran for a few more years.
"We are here legally and paying taxes and enjoying what a married family should be enjoying," said Aung Moe of San Jose, 33, a Burmese political refugee who works as an engineer at Applied Materials. His wife, Mon, is an electrical engineer who is forced to live separately from her husband in Singapore.
"Already we cannot be together, and now she cannot get a Social Security number," he said. "This needs to be fixed."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress penalizes U.S. troops, legal U.S. residents in attempt to punish illegal immigrants
By Ken McLaughlin
Mercury News
Article Launched: 05/07/2008 06:51:18 PM PDT
map loc val immig state
When Congress passed an economic-stimulus package giving hefty rebates to most taxpayers, it tried to make sure that illegal immigrants didn't get any of the cash.
But in doing so lawmakers inadvertently penalized hundreds of thousands of legal U.S. residents - and tens of thousands of U.S. troops stationed overseas - simply because their spouses lack a Social Security number.
"Imagine an American soldier in Iraq whose foreign-born wife is waiting for an immigration petition to be approved and doesn't have a Social Security card. Now the couple can't even get a rebate," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose. "That is really stupid."
Others in the predicament include about a million legal residents whose spouses are still overseas because of long immigration queues and hundreds of thousands of H-1B work visa holders in Silicon Valley and elsewhere.
The scope of the problem is only now becoming clear as the government begins mailing out rebate checks. The first checks were electronically deposited in bank accounts last week.
Because illegal immigrants don't have Social Security numbers and instead routinely use "tax identification numbers," Congress banned rebates for taxpayers who use the IRS-issued numbers.
If a married couple files jointly and one spouse doesn't have a Social Security number, the couple won't get the $1,200 checks that other couples will receive. They're also ineligible for the $300 rebate per child. Many Armed Forces members stationed overseas have foreign spouses who can't get Social Security numbers.
William Luong, stationed at a U.S. naval base in Yokosuka, Japan, said his fellow seamen resent that they've landed in the same category as illegal immigrants.
"They understand the reason they're getting the shaft," said Luong, 21, who is from the Los Angeles area. "but a lot are frustrated or angry about it."
More than 288,000 troops are stationed overseas, according to the Pentagon - not counting those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many live in places - Korea, Japan and Germany - where extended stays often result in marriages to locals.
The unintended situation developed after the House in late January passed the economic-stimulus legislation at the urging of President Bush. But anti-illegal immigration groups then lobbied the Senate to add the Social Security requirement, fearing that illegal immigrants would get their hands on the checks.
The Federation for American Immigrant Reform - whose members went on radio talk shows to bash the House version of the stimulus bill - has no apologies.
"No law was ever written that doesn't find someone falling through the cracks," said Ira Mehlman, a FAIR spokesman, who said he hoped government officials will come up with some way to help Armed Forces members.
But H-1B visa holders and legal immigrants who are being denied rebates say they want some justice, too.
"If the government collects taxes from us, we should be able to get rebates given to other legal residents, it should be a level-playing field," said Parveen Kumar, an H-1B visa holder who lives in Sunnyvale.
Kumar moved to Silicon Valley from India with his wife three years ago. He now works as an engineer at Intelliswift Software in Fremont. But his wife, Anu, is on a H-4 "dependency visa" that doesn't allow her to work.
After he found out about the rebate law, he went to the Mountain View office of the Social Security Administration and asked if he could get a number for his wife. He was told no.
John Johnston, a spokesman for the Social Security Administration, confirmed on Wednesday that the agency's policy is not to issue Social Security cards simply for the purpose of issuing tax rebates.
According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, there are now between 600,000 and 800,000 H-1B visa holders in the United States. Exactly how many are married to spouses ineligible to work in this country is unclear.
Another group of immigrants - about a million nationwide - are non-citizen green-card holders who are already facing seven-year waits to get permission for their spouses to immigrate to their country.
"I've been in America for well over 20 years, and I consider myself an American," said Amir Nikpouri of Orland Park, a suburb of Chicago. "All I'm trying to do is obey the laws, but this one seems really unfair."
Nikpouri, 31, was married three years ago, but his wife won't be eligible to immigrate from Iran for a few more years.
"We are here legally and paying taxes and enjoying what a married family should be enjoying," said Aung Moe of San Jose, 33, a Burmese political refugee who works as an engineer at Applied Materials. His wife, Mon, is an electrical engineer who is forced to live separately from her husband in Singapore.
"Already we cannot be together, and now she cannot get a Social Security number," he said. "This needs to be fixed."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tattoo on the NATO Strap.
qasleuth
03-12 08:15 PM
I consider FOIA is a multifold success. Not only we achieved milestone 1 of $5K, we were successful enough to wake up members to do something after long time. Why do you think the very same members were sleeping? I don't believe IV Core was not doing anything in last few months but members always felt that there is no plan of action from IV. There is nothing worst could happen to us just by disclosing our plan of actions in controlled way like:
1. <<ABC>> is preparing document for final data information.
2. <<XYZ>> is evaluating other options how we could retrieve this information.
3. <<DEF>> is understanding how FOIA works and how long it will take us to get data and what will be the best option to get it earlier.
4. <<MMM>> is working on funding drive for this.
There is no reason to hide even this kind of information. But if we do this, members understand what we are doing at high level.
My 2 cents.
I totally agree. It is not a question of being transparent Vs secretive, it just gives us all a sense of purpose and direction.
Also, information like how much IV is spending on lobbying on a monthly basis ? As this information is publicly available (in fact Sanju could find it by searching for under 10 mins and can be googled),why can't it be displayed on the website ?
1. <<ABC>> is preparing document for final data information.
2. <<XYZ>> is evaluating other options how we could retrieve this information.
3. <<DEF>> is understanding how FOIA works and how long it will take us to get data and what will be the best option to get it earlier.
4. <<MMM>> is working on funding drive for this.
There is no reason to hide even this kind of information. But if we do this, members understand what we are doing at high level.
My 2 cents.
I totally agree. It is not a question of being transparent Vs secretive, it just gives us all a sense of purpose and direction.
Also, information like how much IV is spending on lobbying on a monthly basis ? As this information is publicly available (in fact Sanju could find it by searching for under 10 mins and can be googled),why can't it be displayed on the website ?
more...
pictures Seiko Diver with (orange/Grey
desi485
11-17 04:07 PM
desi - I am not sure how we do that but I personally think if we ask such a thing we are letting USCIS send us denial notice even though they must not send it.
I absolutely agree with you that in first place, CIS MUST NOT revoke 485 when a person changes to similar job after 485 is pending for more than 180 days and 140 has been already approved.
IV is already running the campaign to send letters (I did send mine) and hopefully it will get us good results.
However, we should still know what happens to EAD in such unfortunate event. Many AOS candidate, specifically from retrogressed countries may have gone beyond 6 years of H1B and may not get H1B extended based on this pending 485. or many must be working on EAD as many employers are not willing to sponsor the H1B. In this case, knowing the validity of EAD will surely helps.
Meanwhile, here is another RG thread (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showpost.php?p=25447&postcount=7) found, clearly talks about this issue.
I absolutely agree with you that in first place, CIS MUST NOT revoke 485 when a person changes to similar job after 485 is pending for more than 180 days and 140 has been already approved.
IV is already running the campaign to send letters (I did send mine) and hopefully it will get us good results.
However, we should still know what happens to EAD in such unfortunate event. Many AOS candidate, specifically from retrogressed countries may have gone beyond 6 years of H1B and may not get H1B extended based on this pending 485. or many must be working on EAD as many employers are not willing to sponsor the H1B. In this case, knowing the validity of EAD will surely helps.
Meanwhile, here is another RG thread (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showpost.php?p=25447&postcount=7) found, clearly talks about this issue.
dresses Nato Strap Watch Band Military Heavy Duty Orange 20 22 | eBay
desi485
11-18 03:50 PM
We must also step forward and work towards resolving other things
(1) Create blog on how to report Employer wage violations to Wage and Hour division
(2) USCIS poor customer service - inconsistencies, rude answers ....... We must create a blog to let people know how to contact Ombudsman to report issues
(3) Any other pressing issues....
Folks please add anything you feel must be addressed
One more update: Found another thread on RG's forum. This one is very specific.
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showpost.php?p=25447&postcount=7
Re: EAD & wrongful denial of 485 due to I-140 revoked by employer after 180 days AC21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let my try to clarify my answer, since I didn't do that good a job previously.
An EAD remains valid until it expires, unless it is explicitly revoked. Sometimes, but not always, when the CIS denies an I-485, they also revoke the EAD.
For argument's sake, let's assume that an employer has attempted to revoke an approved I-140 in a case where the applicant's I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. Let's further assume that the CIS denies the I-485 on this basis and also revokes the EAD.
In my opinion, since there is no legal authority for such a denial, and the denial violates the law, it is invalid. Now, I want to make it clear that this is a very unusual situation. It is extremely rare that you find a situation where a CIS adjustment of status denial is clearly and unequivocally illegal, but this is one of those situations.
Because a denial of this type is illegal, the revocation of the applicant's employment authorization is also improper. If an applicant, in this highly unusual and extremely limited situation, works without authorization, then in my opinion that falls into the "beyond his control" exception and no penalty can be imposed.
(1) Create blog on how to report Employer wage violations to Wage and Hour division
(2) USCIS poor customer service - inconsistencies, rude answers ....... We must create a blog to let people know how to contact Ombudsman to report issues
(3) Any other pressing issues....
Folks please add anything you feel must be addressed
One more update: Found another thread on RG's forum. This one is very specific.
http://immigration-information.com/forums/showpost.php?p=25447&postcount=7
Re: EAD & wrongful denial of 485 due to I-140 revoked by employer after 180 days AC21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let my try to clarify my answer, since I didn't do that good a job previously.
An EAD remains valid until it expires, unless it is explicitly revoked. Sometimes, but not always, when the CIS denies an I-485, they also revoke the EAD.
For argument's sake, let's assume that an employer has attempted to revoke an approved I-140 in a case where the applicant's I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. Let's further assume that the CIS denies the I-485 on this basis and also revokes the EAD.
In my opinion, since there is no legal authority for such a denial, and the denial violates the law, it is invalid. Now, I want to make it clear that this is a very unusual situation. It is extremely rare that you find a situation where a CIS adjustment of status denial is clearly and unequivocally illegal, but this is one of those situations.
Because a denial of this type is illegal, the revocation of the applicant's employment authorization is also improper. If an applicant, in this highly unusual and extremely limited situation, works without authorization, then in my opinion that falls into the "beyond his control" exception and no penalty can be imposed.
more...
makeup strap + orange Zulu strap.
minimalist
08-13 04:06 PM
This is truly sad. And I agree with WillWin that we need to do something. IV core has time and again stressed that they will not do anything for a certain EB group. I understand their stance. But every other EB group is getting help from somewhere. For EB3-I, forget getting help, we are actually losing every day forward.
I have lost hopes now, after reading this today. This may as well be my final post to IV. I will keep my recurring payment to IV going on. Hopefully it will help my EB2 friends get their GC and help those people (refer to the Indian friends voting for lawsuit against EB3 to EB2 porting) who want to further turn the screws on EB3-I. How much can you beat a man (or a group) that is already battered?
Best of luck to you all.
EB3 can only be helped when every one else is done.The way the preference categories are setup is that and the numerous cases from 2001 amnesty flooded the EB3 queue causing the retrogression. I don't suppose there can be any thing done to help EB3 specifically. We are at the bottom of the pile. If we have to be helped to get up, every one on top needs to be helped first.
Unless the visa recapture happens, there is no hope. Folks with 2001/2002 PD , keep your spirits up. You are almost there.
All others, if you can try EB2 porting, that's the way to go.
---
EB3-I , May 2006
Contributed 100$
I have lost hopes now, after reading this today. This may as well be my final post to IV. I will keep my recurring payment to IV going on. Hopefully it will help my EB2 friends get their GC and help those people (refer to the Indian friends voting for lawsuit against EB3 to EB2 porting) who want to further turn the screws on EB3-I. How much can you beat a man (or a group) that is already battered?
Best of luck to you all.
EB3 can only be helped when every one else is done.The way the preference categories are setup is that and the numerous cases from 2001 amnesty flooded the EB3 queue causing the retrogression. I don't suppose there can be any thing done to help EB3 specifically. We are at the bottom of the pile. If we have to be helped to get up, every one on top needs to be helped first.
Unless the visa recapture happens, there is no hope. Folks with 2001/2002 PD , keep your spirits up. You are almost there.
All others, if you can try EB2 porting, that's the way to go.
---
EB3-I , May 2006
Contributed 100$
girlfriend a Rescue Orange Nato strap
map_boiler
07-05 01:17 PM
I just used the letter above (slightly edited) to email senators Bennett and Hatch from Utah.
Today I made my first $100.00 contribution to IV. Go IV!
Today I made my first $100.00 contribution to IV. Go IV!
hairstyles with a black nato strap.
sandy_77
06-24 03:17 PM
I suggest that you write at least two articles. First one should focus on our problems and costs involved at each stage for the current 5-7 years waiting period. A lot of guys out there against immigration do not currently know exactly how tuff it is these days to get a visa and come to US. Just imagine if somebody came to US on a student loan and was not able to get a job because of these visa problems as has started to happen over the last couple of years, how much financial burden he will have and how long it will take him to pay off these loans. explain how visa applicants are harassed buy the consulates, USCIS/DHS/DOS, lawyers, employers just because they can. Had everyone who came to US to study or work on his/her own merit been given a green card like visa as and when they wanted it, he/she would not be exploited, they would compete with any american citizen for a better pay (taking away the argument from the anti-immigrants that we are displacing the citizens by being underpaid). This I think would have taken away the argument that we are over populating the US or that we are immigrants for ever (not assimilating in the mainstream) because then we would be part of the mainstream and those who do not want to live in US forever (a significant number of people...leading to reduced immigration) could go back when they wanted. Look for all the problems we have to face on a day-to-day basis and ask whether we are asking more than some basic human rights and are we wrong in asking for these rights. Isn't it also one form of injustice when we are paying for medicare/social security without getting any benefits? Isn't it injustice when we cannot progress in our careers when we are stuck in this endless and ever increasing GC delays? Isn't it injustice when we are equated with the illegal immigrants? Isn't it injustice when we are asked to renew our status by paying ever increasing fees and endless documentation when there is no need unless one has left the country on his own and wishes to return? Does the country really need skilled immigrants and if it does why can't it allow them to live with some basic human rights and dignity. By denying the new immigrants these rights, dignity is the US promoting new-age slavery and forcing even the legal immigrants into shadows and back alleys of the society? Explore why some legal immigrants have to resort to illegal status (school going kids, family life, friends...age at which they migrate changes their social circle) when they cannot stay in status by legal means.
Once you have explored and educated your article readers about our situation, they will have a better understanding of what we are requesting the US govt is lot illegitimate and may even encourage some illegal immigrants into going the legal way.
Once you have explored and educated your article readers about our situation, they will have a better understanding of what we are requesting the US govt is lot illegitimate and may even encourage some illegal immigrants into going the legal way.
PHANI_TAVVALA
09-01 01:47 PM
Been here since August 1995 - came on F1 undergrad
and counting. Looks like you were out of luck. You would have been an citizen if you started your greencard pre-1999.
and counting. Looks like you were out of luck. You would have been an citizen if you started your greencard pre-1999.
RandyK
07-05 01:54 PM
:d
No comments:
Post a Comment